Saturday, February 06, 2010

Dialectics and Symmetry

I've said this before, but not everything has an opposite - in fact, many things we think of as being traditionally opposite are false dichotomies. For instance, gender (aside from biological sex which I see as being separate from gender) can be thought of as more of a spectrum than polar opposites. In Myers-Briggs, justice (T) and mercy (F) are juxtaposed as a dichotomy, but shouldn't they work together, not apart, for there to be any true justice? Justice is for mankind and involves human rights, after all. If critical thinking and empathy were once thought of as one cognitive function, why were they separated again? Perhaps it was for the design (aesthetics) rather than function (application), because I don't think it works. I think presenting these as a dichotomy causes confusion, and quite possibly, a more merciless mentality.

Likewise, arguments between people can't always be "equal", or fair and balanced, if the goal is to find a solution, not to make things even for the sake of evenness (symmetry, beauty, harmonization) by artificial (or philosophical) means. Dialectics seems to me a sport rather than a sound method of debate which, when applied to real life, actually helps solve problems. It is rather, in my humble opinion, a technique of never losing an argument by presenting every nonsensical point as being logical. Dialectics are case in point that being overly rational, or objective at the expense of human empathy, can endlessly spin nonsense to simulate an actual conversation, and does not allow true emergent cognitive sense to enter (because no one can really listen when they're trying to create logical symmetry - this is dialectical, not formal, logic at work). What's beautiful about it? Isn't this just circular thinking?

(The difference between formal logic and dialectical logic: Link here)